Zero-latency SQLite storage in every Durable Object

This is a really interesting design, but these kinds of smart systems always inhabit an uncanny valley for me. You need them in exactly two cases:

1. You have a really high-load system that you need to figure out some clever ways to scale.

2. You're working on a toy project for fun.

If #2, fine, use whatever you want, it's great.

If this is production, or for Work(TM), you need something proven. If you don't know you need this, you don't need it, go with a boring Postgres database and a VM or something.

If you do know you need this, then you're kind of in a bind: It's not really very mature yet, as it's pretty new, and you're probably going to hit a bunch of weird edge cases, which you probably don't really want to have to debug or live with.

So, who are these systems for, in the end? They're so niche that they can't easily mature and be used by lots of serious players, and they're too complex with too many tradeoffs to be used by 99.9% of companies.

The only people I know for sure are the target market for this sort of thing is the developers who see something shiny, build a company (or, worse, build someone else's company) on it, and then regret it pretty soon and move to something else (hopefully much more boring).

Does anyone have more insight on this? I'd love to know.

Databases is an extremely slow-maturing area, similar to programming languages, but are all deviations from Postgres shiny and hipster?

The idea of colocating data and behavior is really a quantifiable reduction in complexity. It removes latency and bandwidth concerns, which means both operational concerns and development concerns (famously the impact of the N+1 problem is greatly reduced). You can absolutely argue that networked Postgres is better for other reasons (and you may be right) but SQLite is about as boring and predictable as you can get, with known strong advantages. This is the reason it’s getting popular on the server.

That said, I don’t like the idea of creating many small databases very much - as they suggest with Durable Objects. That gives noSQL nightmares - breaking all kinds of important invariants of relational dbs. I think it’s much preferable to use SQLite as a monolithic database like it’s done in their D1 product.

> That gives noSQL nightmares - breaking all kinds of important invariants of relational dbs

IMO Durable Objects map well to use cases where there actually are documents. Think of Figma. There is a ton of data that lives inside the literal Figma document. It would be awful to have a relational table for like "shapes" with one row per rectangle across Figma's entire customer base. That's just not an appropriate use of a relational database.

So let's say I built Figma on MongoDB, where each Figma document is a Mongo document. That corresponds fairly straightforwardly to each Figma document being a Durable Object instance, using either the built-in noSQL storage that Durable Objects already have, or a small Sqlite relational database which does have a "shapes" table, but only containing the shapes in this one document.